Opinion
June 1, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
An officer's affidavit in support of the search warrant in question detailed information relating to an auto theft ring provided by a confidential informant, which information was verified by the officer himself. The affidavit further related the officer's own observations of criminal activities, conversations intercepted pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant, and his extensive experience and training. There was, therefore, sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant (People v Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417; People v Lapi, 61 A.D.2d 825).
Moreover, the search warrant particularly described the items to be seized, despite the difficulty involved in describing dismantled auto parts (People v Teribury, 91 A.D.2d 815; see also, People v Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396). The warrant was not overbroad or ambiguous and did not authorize a general, exploratory search (Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, reh denied 404 U.S. 874).
Reference to the warrant, its heading, and to the documents submitted in support thereof (People v De Lago, 16 N.Y.2d 289, cert denied 383 U.S. 963; People v Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 333; People v Taggart, 51 A.D.2d 863), indicate that the warrant authorized a search of the premises known as East Meadow Auto Parts, including its fenced-in area and roof. The executing officers did not exceed the parameters of the warrant in their search (People v Nibur, 113 A.D.2d 957, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 655; People v Brooks, supra).
Since the search warrant was properly issued and executed, suppression of the evidence seized pursuant to it was properly denied.
Similarly, the eavesdropping warrant in question was properly issued and executed. Further, the defendant does not have standing to contest any alleged failure to minimize the interception of conversations on someone else's telephone (People v Edelstein, 54 N.Y.2d 306, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 878; People v Sergi, 96 A.D.2d 911). A detailed affidavit of a police officer provided probable cause for the eavesdropping warrant (People v Gnozzo, 31 N.Y.2d 134, rearg denied sub nom. People v Zorn, 31 N.Y.2d 709, cert denied 410 U.S. 943; People v Manuli, 104 A.D.2d 386). The affidavit of the officer satisfied all of the requirements of CPL 700.15 including the requirement that the inability of law enforcement to proceed by normal investigative methods be established (People v Gallina, 95 A.D.2d 336). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.